Tenth Amendment Center » Federal Powerhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com
Concordia res Parvae CrescuntSun, 02 Aug 2015 18:11:34 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3Rebuilding Liberty Without Permissionhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/30/rebuilding-liberty-without-permission/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/30/rebuilding-liberty-without-permission/#commentsThu, 30 Jul 2015 18:24:03 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=25036A new book from a mainstream author and publisher not only details the problems created by the federal regulatory state, it recommends a course of action to stop it quite familiar to supporters of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Followers of the Tenth Amendment Center’s work are no strangers to the continuing growth of federal power. From expansive wars overseas, to disproportionate incarceration of citizens, to complete disregard of constitutional jurisprudence, there seems to be no limit to the continuous expansion of federal authority.

In Charles Murray’s most recent book By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission (Crown Forum, 2015) the focus is on just that. However, rather than the typical aggregate summary of the current state of affairs, Murray focuses on what is sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government – the regulatory state; that is the extensive and intertwined network of unelected administrative agencies, each dominating their area of “expertise.”

Introducing the book, Murray carefully describes the rise of big government in America. In part 1, titled “Coming to terms with where we stand,” he makes the case that our political process is beyond repair and no longer an effective avenue for change. He identifies the Supreme Court as a key tool expansionists used to legitimize any overreaching law or interpretation thereof (think general welfare clause).

Murray continues his evaluation with precise and fact-based findings to cement his position. He often cites the Code of Federal Regulations, which grew from 22,877 pages to 174,545 pages in a span of 50 years, as black and white proof of an over burdensome bureaucracy. Murray correctly points out these codes are primarily malum prohibitum(wrong not in and of themselves, but because statute asserts so.) That leaves Americans complying with counter-productive regulations that are expansive and bad for society overall, despite the image lawmakers strive to sell.

Ideally, Murray argues that regulatory bodies should harbor a “no harm, no foul” outlook on their rulings; the discretion sports referees take when making a call. As Murray writes;

“If a violation of a rule has occurred but it has no effect on the action of the game, the officials ignore it and the game goes on, to the greater enjoyment of both players and spectators. As the sports announcers say, ‘The officials are letting them play tonight.'”

Having identified the problem, Murray goes on to explain why conventional political methods, such as electing the right representatives or depending on judges, are of little use in reining in the beast. Referencing the fact that the Supreme Court continually affirms most of what the legislative branch passes anyway, and even addsto existing law (think Chief Justice Robert’s most recent ruling on King vs. Burwell), there seems to be no hope in asking lawmakers to restrain themselves when they have a judicial stamp of approval operating less than a mile away.

Murray notes that in the few cases the Supreme Court actually did overturn law, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson, it amounted to only a roadblock to federal operations and not its limits. And it’s the lack of limits of federal power that is the root of overreaching government actions. With lawmakers legislating outside the sphere of their constitutionally enumerated powers, we see time and time again a blurred line between what Congress can and cannot do.

Unlike many typical social science books, Murray doesn’t just leave the reader with a laundry list of grievances. Instead he constructs a very plausible strategy to stop them. By the People details, what Murray calls, “systematic civil disobedience” – a distinct initiation of defiance to certain regulations. As Murray explains:

“Not…all regulations, but…pointless, stupid and tyrannical ones. Identifying…categories that should come under strict scrutiny include regulations that prescribe best practice for a craft or profession; restrict access to an occupation; prohibit owners of property from using it as they wish; prescribe hiring, firing and working conditions; and prevent people from taking voluntary risks. Within each category, the task is to discriminate between regulations that should command our voluntary compliance from those that are foolish or worse…”

Under his strategy, laws which are malum in se (bad in themselves) are exempt. Murray also excludes public interest items such as the tax code and national defense from his “systematic civil disobedience,” leaving issues that nearly everybody opposes such as bureaucratic red-tape, over bearing OSHA regulations and other administrative laws.

Murray’s approach to methodical defiance distances himself from individuals applying similar techniques to more controversial topics, which it’s assumed, could tarnish the cause. It seems Murray chooses to focus on the low hanging fruit of federal grievousness for the sake of plausibility, or to focus action on issues that cross party lines. Be that as it may, attacking the issues We the People covers would be a step in the right direction for liberty.

Murray’s proposed mechanism for attack is what he calls “The Madison Defense Fund.” A private legal defense fund which treats government as an “insurable threat,” much like floods and fires. As Murray sees it, businesses take out insurance for workers compensation, and they can do the same for government meddling.

GET THE BOOK HERE

In a recent example, Sackett v. EPA, the Sackett family was accused of building their home on government protected wetlands. The family attempted to contest the decision, but was not allowed to since the administrative courts would not hear their case. In the meantime, the family racked up $37,000 a day in fines (The Sacketts were eventually vindicated in court). This is the typical case – and one Murray highlights – as the Madison Defense Fund’s main target.

As Murray explains it, initially the private firm would notify the regulatory agency that it will represent the defendant, and that it will relieve the defendant of any and all financial hardship the regulatory agency wishes to impose on them. Furthermore, not only will the Madison Defense Fund relieve the financial burden, it will also publicly announce the heavy handedness of the regulation and its effect on the people. The strategy is to win a “war of attrition,” ending with the government backing down because the benefit of the said legal battle would be outweighed by the negative public backlash.

All in all, By the People offers a refreshing outlook on how to further the liberty fight. The book spotlights the issues at hand and offers a seemingly plausible solution that appeals to those in favor of peaceful civil disobedience.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business.

It was truly unique – the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution.

It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job.

And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history.

False Celebration

But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists.

The holiday oratory deceitfully describes America as though it were the unique land of liberty that once was. Politicians thank the Almighty for conferring the blessings of liberty on a country that no longer enjoys those blessings. The original freedom and security have disappeared, even though the oratory lingers on.

What made America unique is now gone, and we are much the same as Germany, France, England, or Spain, with:

confiscatory taxes,

a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are symbolic only – merely documents used to justify governmental actions that are in fact prohibited by those documents,

business regulated by the state in the most minute detail,

no limits on what Congress or the President might decide to do.

Yes, there are some freedoms left, but nothing like the America that was and nothing that you can’t find in a few dozen other countries.

The Empire

Gone, too, is the sense of peace and security that once reigned throughout the land. America, bound by two huge oceans and two friendly neighbors – was subject to none of the never-ending wars and destruction that plagued Europe and Asia.

Now, however, everyone’s business is America’s business. Our Presidents consider themselves the rulers of the world – deciding who may govern any country on earth and sending Americans to die enforcing those decisions.

Whereas America was once an inspiration to the entire world – its very existence was proof that peace and liberty really were possible – Americans now live in fear of the rest of the world and the rest of the world lives in fear of America.

The Future

Because the education of our children was turned over to government in the 19th century, generations of Americans have been taught that freedom means taxes, regulations, civic duty, and responsibility for the whole world. They have no conception of the better life that could exist in a society in which government doesn’t manage health care, education, welfare, and business – and in which individuals are free to plot their own destinies.

Human beings are born with the desire to make their own decisions and control their own lives. But in most countries government and social pressures work to teach people to expect very little autonomy.

Fortunately, in America a remnant has kept alive the ideas of liberty, peace, and self-respect – passing the concepts on from generation to generation. And so today millions of Americans know that the present system isn’t the right system – that human beings aren’t born to serve the state and police the world.

Millions more would be receptive upon being shown that it’s possible to have better lives than what they’re living now.

Both groups need encouragement to quit supporting those who are taking freedom away from them.

Become a member and support the TAC!

You and I may not have the money and influence to change America by ourselves, but we can keep spreading the word – describing a better society in which individuals are truly free and government is in chains (instead of the opposite).

And someday we may reach the people who do have the money and influence to persuade tens of millions of Americans to change our country for the better.

I don’t know that it’s going to happen, but I do know it’s possible. I know that the urge to live one’s own life is as basic in human beings as the will to live and the desire to procreate. If we keep plugging away, we may eventually tap into that urge and rally the forces necessary to restore the real America.

And then the 4th of July will be worth celebrating again.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/03/uncelebrating-fourth/feed/0If the Feds Rule the States, Who Rules the Feds?http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/01/if-the-feds-rule-the-states-who-rules-the-feds/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/01/if-the-feds-rule-the-states-who-rules-the-feds/#commentsWed, 01 Jul 2015 18:04:41 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24968Every once in a while, the Supreme Court delivers up an opinion conservatives or libertarians like.

For instance, conservatives always cheer when federal courts strike down state gun laws. And just last week, libertarians rejoiced when the Supreme Court ruled every state must recognize same-sex marriages.

While rulings like these certainly count as wins for “liberty,” I almost always find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to oppose them.

Why?

Because these federal court opinions extend federal power into spheres it was never meant to reach.

Under the constitutional system, federal authority remains constrained by specific enumerated powers. All other authority was left to the states and the people. While the founding generation recognized the fact that states could impose tyranny, it emphatically rejected federal control over state governments – for better or for worse.

The constitutional system was predicated on a very simple premise – centralized, government power ultimately poses the greatest threat to liberty, therefore we should guard against consolidation of government into one great body.

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Fisher Aims argued for the inclusion of an amendment that would later become the Tenth.

“A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and the local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protect the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.”

The states were always intended to serve as a bulwark against federal overreach. The founders never conceived of a federal government policing the states.

When I make this argument, I almost always run up against the following objection.

Wait…So, are you saying that it was intended that states can deprive their citizens of basic rights, and that when this happens there is no recourse for those being oppressed, because it’s a state’s rights issue? I mean, doesn’t someone have to step in and protect the minority from mob rule?

This leaves me scratching my head. If the feds take on the role of protecting the minorities from state tyranny, who protects those same people from the feds?

Yes. Of course states can deprive people of their rights. All governments can do that. And they do.

But that doesn’t mean we want to empower the federal government to rule over 350 million people. You end up with absurdities like federal judges telling people in some small town in Iowa that they can’t put up a nativity scene in their city park.

And just because we don’t turn the federal government into a liberty enforcement squad doesn’t leave the people in an oppressive state “without recourse.” They can pressure their state legislature to change state laws. They can sue in state court. They can amend their state constitutions. And if all else fails, they have 49 states they can move to as an escape.

Aren’t these the same actions federal supremacists suggest as recourse when the federal government fails to protect our rights?

But individuals can exercise more control over a state or local government than they can the federal government. This becomes manifestly evident in the response you get when you call a state representative as opposed to your Congressman or U.S. senator. The political class in D.C. only listens to people with money and/or influence. But a few dedicated individuals can actually impact the legislative process in a state legislature. I’ve seen it happen on numerous occasions.

“Doesn’t someone have to step in and protect the minority from mob rule?”

Stop and seriously consider this objection. These people suggest we elevate the federal government to the top of the food chain to lord over the states. As a result, it ultimately has the power to deprive all 350 million people in America of their rights, and when this happens, by their own reasoning, the people have no recourse because the federal government stands supreme.

All the federal supremacists have done is move things one level higher and centralized power. Instead of 50 competing governments serving as a check on federal authority, we get a consolidated government governing through the judiciary.

Do you really want five politically-connected lawyers defining and protecting your rights?

This all leaves us with an important question: who protects us from the feds? If we follow this out to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t we establish an international government to protect people the federal government violating their rights?

Something to think about.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/01/if-the-feds-rule-the-states-who-rules-the-feds/feed/0Prisons Without Walls: We’re All Inmates in the American Police Statehttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/28/prisons-without-walls-were-all-inmates-in-the-american-police-state/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/28/prisons-without-walls-were-all-inmates-in-the-american-police-state/#commentsSun, 28 Jun 2015 19:06:12 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24958“Free worlders” is prison slang for those who are not incarcerated behind prison walls. Supposedly, those fortunate souls live in the “free world.” However, appearances can be deceiving.

“As I got closer to retiring from the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” writes former prison employee Marlon Brock, “it began to dawn on me that the security practices we used in the prison system were being implemented outside those walls.” In fact, if Brock is right, then we “free worlders” do live in a prison—albeit, one without visible walls.

Detection and confiscation of weapons (or whatever the warden deems “dangerous”) in prison is routine. The inmates must be disarmed. Pat downs, checkpoints, and random searches are second nature in ferreting out contraband.

Then there are the crowd control tactics: helmets, face shields, batons, knee guards, tear gas, wedge formations, half steps, full steps, pinning tactics, armored vehicles, and assault weapons. Most of these phrases are associated with prison crowd control because they were perfected by prisons.

These are just some of the similarities between the worlds inhabited by locked-up inmates and those of us who roam about in the so-called “free world.”

Is there any real difference?

To those of us who see the prison that’s being erected around us, it’s a bit easier to realize what’s coming up ahead, and it’s not pretty. However, and this must be emphasized, what most Americans perceive as life in the United States of America is a far cry from reality. Real agendas and real power are always hidden.

As Author Frantz Fanon notes, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

This state of denial and rejection of reality is the essential plot of John Carpenter’s 1988 film They Live, where a group of down-and-out homeless men discover that people have been, in effect, so hypnotized by media distractions that they do not see their prison environment and the real nature of those who control them—that is, an oligarchic elite.

Caught up in subliminal messages such as “obey” and “conform,” among others, beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards, and the like, people are unaware of the elite controlling their lives. As such, they exist, as media analyst Marshall McLuhan once wrote, in “prisons without walls.” And of course, any resistance is met with police aggression.

A key moment in the film occurs when John Nada, a homeless drifter, notices something strange about people hanging about a church near the homeless settlement where he lives. Nada decides to investigate. Entering the church, he sees graffiti on a door: They live, We sleep. Nada overhears two men, obviously resisters, talking about “robbing banks” and “manufacturing Hoffman lenses until we’re blue in the face.” Moments later, one of the resisters catches Nada fumbling in the church and tells him “it’s the revolution.” When Nada nervously backs off, the resister assures him, “You’ll be back.”

Rummaging through a box, Nada discovers a handful of cheap-looking sunglasses, referred to earlier as Hoffman lenses. Grabbing a pair and exiting the church, he starts walking down a busy urban street.

Sliding the sunglasses on his face, Nada is shocked to see a society bombarded and controlled on every side by subliminal messages beamed at them from every direction. Billboards are transformed into authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is replaced with the words “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

What’s even more disturbing than the hidden messages, however, are the ghoulish-looking creatures—the elite—who appear human until viewed them through the lens of truth.

This is the subtle message of They Live, an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state. These things are in plain sight, but from the time we are born until the time we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our good. The truth, far different, is that those who rule us don’t really see us as human beings with dignity and worth. They see us as if “we’re livestock.”

It’s only once Nada’s eyes have been opened that he is able to see the truth: “Maybe they’ve always been with us,” he says. “Maybe they love it—seeing us hate each other, watching us kill each other, feeding on our own cold f**in’ hearts.” Nada, disillusioned and fed up with the lies and distortions, is finally ready to fight back. “I got news for them. Gonna be hell to pay. Cause I ain’t daddy’s little boy no more.”

What about you?

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the warning signs have been cautioning us for decades. Oblivious to what lies ahead, most have ignored the obvious. We’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

As Rod Serling warned:

All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes—all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the earth into a graveyard, into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance. Then we become the grave diggers.

The message: stay alert.

Take the warning signs seriously. And take action because the paths to destruction are well disguised by those in control.

This is the lesson of history.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/28/prisons-without-walls-were-all-inmates-in-the-american-police-state/feed/0Monochrome Government in a Full-Color Worldhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/18/monochrome-government-in-a-full-color-world/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/18/monochrome-government-in-a-full-color-world/#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 07:33:43 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24934Henry Ford famously said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

Of course today, we can buy automobiles in a wide array of colors, not to mention hundreds of makes, models and body styles. Car makers offer us an endless smorgasbord of features, options and upgrades.

The market demands variety.

Why?

Because we’re all different.

We possess different needs, tastes and preferences. Some people need a powerful vehicle for towing or work purposes. Some demand fuel efficiency. Some favor comfort over economy.

Despite Henry Ford’s smugness, there was no way Ford could perpetually limited his product to one-size-fits-all vehicles. Car buyers demanded more.

So, why do so many Americans want monochrome government?

In American today, the political class encamped along the Potomac inserts itself into virtually every aspect of our lives. The federal government tells us which plants we can and can’t use for medicine, what kind of light bulbs we can screw into our fixtures and mandates that we purchase health insurance. We demand that Congress define marriage, insist federal judges prescribe the limits of religious freedom and beg bureaucrats to standardize education.

When you boil it all down, the vast majority of Americans enthusiastically embrace one-size-fits all monopoly government centered in Washington D.C.

You can have any kind of government you want, as long as it’s national.

As Americans debated ratification of the Constitution, a writer publishing under the pseudonym “Brutus” warned against expansive national power centered in the federal government. Most scholars believe Brutus was Robert Yates. He was a New York judge and a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention.

Brutus had a firm grasp on America’s diversity – the differences from region to region and state to state. He railed against the prospect of a consolidated government ruling over “a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States.”

“In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving, against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.”

In other words, monochrome government won’t work in a country as large as the United States. A handful of politicians all crammed together with a bunch of appointed bureaucrats in a single city simply cannot effectively govern more than 300 million people spread out across thousands of square miles. Brutus offered a poignant warning.

“In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them.”

Brutus’ message resonated with most Americans during the founding era. They did not want centralized government – or consolidation, as they often called it. They believed the best government remained closest to home.

Supporters of the Constitution didn’t dispute Brutus’ contention. They didn’t preach the virtues of a powerful central government. Instead, they promised the system created by the proposed Constitution would not lead to consolidation and would not establish a powerful “national” government.

In Federalist #14, James Madison insisted that the federal government would remain limited. It would only exercise explicitly delegated powers, and most of the actual governing would remain at the state level – closer to the people.

“It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.”

The constitutional system makes sense. The federal government handles the few things that involve the entire union – national defense, trade and foreign relations. And the state governments handle, as Madison put it in Federalist #45, “all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Californians decide what kind of plants you can consume in California. Floridians decide how they want to define marriage in Florida. Alaskans decide how to protect the environment in Alaska.

But we’ve bastardized the constitutional system. We’ve allowed the political class to create the consolidated government Brutus so feared.

We can have any kind of government we want, as long as it’s run by the political elites in Washington D.C.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/18/monochrome-government-in-a-full-color-world/feed/0Surprise: Federal Solution to Policing is Actually the Problemhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/11/surprise-federal-solution-to-policing-is-actually-the-problem/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/11/surprise-federal-solution-to-policing-is-actually-the-problem/#commentsMon, 11 May 2015 17:04:49 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24820In the midst of recent events in Baltimore, Al Sharpton once again claimed the spotlight, calling for the Department of Justice to take over the nation’s “policing,” He suggested that nationalization was the only way to hold cops accountable for their actions.

But in his quest for a national police monopoly, Sharpton ignores the fact that the feds created the problem of militarized cops wielding excessive force in the first place.

Sharpton made similar comments recently, after a North Charleston man was shot in the back multiple times while fleeing from police. “There must be national policy and national law on policing,” he said. “We can’t go from state to state; we’ve got to have national law to protect people against these continued questions.”

He went one step further this time around, upping his rhetoric to claim that “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey addressed this recently, noting that the Constitution does not authorize federal authority over state and local policing. And for good reason. The Founders recognized the inherent dangers of centralized authority.

The question is, when are we going to?

There is no lack of evidence. The national war on drugs – as the primary example – has been an abysmal failure. In the name of fighting this so called “war,” the federal government has increasingly acted to militarize local police – the very law enforcement agencies we now see using excessive force on a daily basis.

The feds distribute surplus military weaponry and gear, such as armored vehicles and assault rifles, free of charge.

Local police are also incentivized by federal government programs such as Equitable Sharing, which “enables—indeed, encourages—state and local police and prosecutors to circumvent the civil forfeiture laws of their states for financial gain.”

This is not to mention the various other task forces (ATF, US Marshals) which encourage local police to act like soldiers in a war. Even the Bureau of Land Management and the Food & Drug Administration now have SWAT teams to help the locals police violations.

In fact, the line between state and local, and federal policing has already been blurred nearly out of existence. And as the lines between the two have disappeared, we’ve seen an increase in problems like excessive force. Hardly a week goes by without some new horror being revealed; from children injured in no knock raids (where the police never even find any evidence of narcotics), to the recent revelations of DEA sex scandals.

Sharpton wants the feds to police the police. But who is policing the DEA and other large federal government entities? Even the DOJ that Sharpton believes can police the rest of the country, can’t obtain the information it needs from other government agencies in a timely manner – if at all. The Justice Department noted the following in a report on sexual misconduct:

“Initially, the FBI and DEA refused to provide the OIG with unredacted information that was responsive to our requests…” and later; “we cannot be completely confident that the FBI and DEA provided us with all information relevant to this review, As a result, our report reflects the findings and conclusions we reached based on the information made available to us.”

So, the FBI doesn’t even cooperate with the Department of Justice, and yet somehow, Sharpton considers it more accountable than local law enforcement?

The truth is, federal meddling in state and local policing is the source of the problem. The feds actually drive local policing priorities and policies by leading your neighborhood cop to focus most of his efforts on fighting the drug war, the never-ending and vague war on terror, and enforcing unconstitutional federal firearm restrictions. They also rope local police into assisting in a ridiculous medley of regulatory task forces, finding new and invasive ways to collect revenue – and sanction citizens.

The feds drive local police priorities leading to all manner of profiling, surveillance, and violence. Your local police department now primarily focuses on federal priorities rather than serving and protecting the community.

We see the results. Consider just one example – as police have dedicated more and more resources to fighting the “drug war,” the number of solved murders has dropped. Thanks to federal influence, far too many police officers view themselves as soldiers on the battlefield, or hired enforcers, not peace officers protecting their neighbors. Is it any wonder we’ve witnessed a huge increase in cops using excessive force and operating with an “any means necessary” mentality?

Instead of giving the federal government more control over local cops, its time to do away with these federal programs and policies that are destroying local accountability over law enforcement.

Some states are starting to do just that.

Just last month the Montana legislature passed a bill restricting the types of military grade equipment state and local police can obtain through federal programs. New Jersey didn’t go quite as far, but did pass a law requiring local law enforcement agencies to get approval from local government before obtaining military gear, providing the people a way to stop it. If other states followed suit, we would certainly see a shift as local police found themselves more confined – no longer able to militarize themselves through federal grants and programs that the general public is unaware of.

Also this year, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez signed HB 560 into law, dismantling civil asset forfeiture. No longer can property be seized from citizens on civil grounds, during an arrest or simple traffic stop, based only on a suspicion that it may have been used in a crime.

These are just two examples of the many state bills introduced to reign in such destructive policies.

Significant problems with law enforcement are rampant in most of our states and communities. This is never going to change until we fully recognize the source of the problem – the funding, training and incentivizing of such activities by the federal government. These policies caused these problems in the first place, and states can stop them in their tracks.

Consolidating power even more – asking the federal government to intervene – is just asking the same people who created the problem to fix it. Al Sharpton’s plan is guaranteed to make things worse.

Mike Maharrey contributed to this article.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/11/surprise-federal-solution-to-policing-is-actually-the-problem/feed/0Know Your Enemy: How Federal Programs are Carried Outhttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/01/27/know-your-enemy-how-federal-programs-are-carried-out/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/01/27/know-your-enemy-how-federal-programs-are-carried-out/#commentsTue, 27 Jan 2015 21:56:08 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24523There are two main ways that most major federal programs are put into effect. Understanding this will help determine the best way to stop them.

PROCESS 1

Some new way to violate your rights comes on the scene. The feds start giving the tools to effectuate this idea – either through grant money to buy specific things, or giveaways of specific equipment – to the states. The states start using them – widely. Eventually, the feds tap into the program, essentially making it a national program. This is done via “information sharing” that was expanded after 9-11, or Memoranda of understanding (MOUs), which are essentially partnerships with state funds attached to them. These agreements are not necessarily legally binding, but usually offer some privacy between state, private enterprises (contractors), and federal partnerships. Much of this kind of information usually remains hidden from the general public.

Examples: Parallel Construction, using NSA data without warrant in regular criminal investigations on a state and local level. Pentagon’s 1033 program of giving military equipment to local police, turning them into an army. This equipment is often used to help in Process 2 – direct enforcement. Drones, where the DHS is giving mass amounts of grant money to the states to put surveillance systems in the sky. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), where the Wall Street Journal broke the story that the DEA has been working with local law enforcement to track people through their license plates for over 7 years. The ACLU obtained numerous documents revealing how local and state agencies build license plate reader systems using federal grant money. In other words, they buy the local agencies the equipment, which in essence makes a national system for the feds to tap in to.

PROCESS 2

The feds pass a new law or program violating your rights. The states handle either handle the front-line enforcement, or they provide significant resources to the operation of the program. This is pretty straightforward, the local agencies are, again, doing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Examples: The EPA has just over 200 enforcement agents for the entire country. Most enforcement is done by state agencies. Federal drug prohibition is primarily effectuated by state prohibition, and the same goes for federal gun control. In other areas, states operate critical infrastructure for the feds, such as exchanges or medicaid expansion for the Affordable Care Act – or water and power NSA spying facilities.

WHAT THIS TEACHES US

The fact of the matter is this – the feds simply don’t have the manpower or resources to do what they’ve been doing. It’s the states that have been doing most of it for them.

Understanding this – the #1 most effective way to stop federal programs is to simply withdraw participation or support for them on a state level.

This is exactly what Hans-Hermann Hoppe recommended in his speech What Must Be done. In it, he said:

“Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air.”

This mirrors the advice of James Madison in Federalist #46, which prominently recommended, among other things, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/01/27/know-your-enemy-how-federal-programs-are-carried-out/feed/0Constitutional Criminals: Congress Expands NSA Spying, Again.http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/12/17/constitutional-criminals-congress-expands-nsa-spying-again/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/12/17/constitutional-criminals-congress-expands-nsa-spying-again/#commentsThu, 18 Dec 2014 04:20:02 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24329When the government is waving at us with its right hand, so to speak, it is the government’s left hand that we should be watching. Just as a magician draws your attention to what he wants you to see so you will not observe how his trick is performed, last week presented a textbook example of public disputes masking hidden deceptions. Here is what happened.

Last week was dominated by two huge news stories. One was the revelation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of torture committed by CIA agents and contractors on 119 detainees in the post-9/11 era — 26 of whom were tortured for months by mistake. In that revelation of anguish and error were the conclusions by CIA agents themselves that their torture had not produced helpful information. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the CIA had tortured, yet he directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute those who tortured and those who authorized it.

The other substantial news story was the compromise achieved by Congress and the White House to fund the government through the end of September 2015. That legislation, which is 2,000 pages in length, was not read by anyone who voted for it. It spends a few hundred billion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenue.

The compromise was achieved through bribery; members of Congress bought and sold votes by adding goodies (in the form of local expenditures of money borrowed by the federal government) to the bill that were never debated or independently voted upon and were added solely to achieve the votes needed for passage. This is how the federal government operates today. Both parties participate in it. They have turned the public treasury into a public trough.

Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America — including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials and law enforcement officials.

I say “innocent” because the language of this legislation — which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about — makes clear that those who spy upon us needn’t have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying.

The need for articulable suspicion and probable cause has its origins in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the brutish British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant.

Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue. And fishing expeditions turn the presumption of liberty on its head. The presumption of liberty is based on the belief that our rights are natural to us and that we may exercise them without a permission slip from the government and without its surveillance.

Until last week, that is. Last week, Congress, by authorizing the massive NSA spying to continue and by authorizing the spies to share what they have seized with law enforcement, basically permitted the fishing expeditions that the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

How can the president and Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn’t every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution create the presidency and the Congress? How can politicians purport to change it?

The answers to these questions are obvious, as is the belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want, so long as they can get away with it.

COPYRIGHT 2014 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/12/17/constitutional-criminals-congress-expands-nsa-spying-again/feed/0The Status Quo in DC will not Change, But Hope Remainshttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/11/01/the-status-quo-in-dc-will-not-change-but-hope-remains/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/11/01/the-status-quo-in-dc-will-not-change-but-hope-remains/#commentsSun, 02 Nov 2014 01:49:15 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24194Voting is little more than an illusion in this day and age, and federal-level elections are largely ceremonial, according to the findings of a respected academic.

Michael J. Glennon is Professor of International Law at Tufts University. He has recently published a book titled ‘National Security and Double Government.’ In the book, he argues that the federal system never changes at its core, regardless of who is elected. Glennon says this is especially true on the issues of national security and foreign affairs, where the calls for war and centralized government control are seemingly endless.

Glennon is no kook, crackpot or even an outsider. He worked as a consultant to the State Department and served as the legal counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well. His experiences helped to shape his perspective. He knows from his own first-hand experience that the political process at the federal level is not just dysfunctional, but fundamentally broken beyond repair.

Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

Rather than listening to the will of the people, Congress relies on a gaggle of supposed experts receiving paychecks from the military industrial complex to call the shots. These are the type of ‘experts’ who insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat. They also said Ahmadinejad was a terrorist dictator hell bent on destroying Israel, until he left office after a democratic election. It seems like the only thing that you can do to disqualify yourself from being a national security expert in the Beltway is to be accurate with your predictions.

The situation is dire, as Glennon explains:

These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

We have seen this with the NSA, a secretive bureaucracy operating outside of any accountability and oversight doing permanent damage to our privacy rights. This is the type of behavior our current system is designed to permit. Americans take regulatory bureaucracies in Washington D.C. for granted. Instead they focus all of their attention on Congressmen and other elected officials who come and go.

But what always remains?

The bureaucratic regulatory agencies and their authority. And they only seems to grow with every passing administration.

There are so many rules, regulations, bureaus and red tape on the books in Washington D.C. now that the feds cannot even give the public an official tally. This problem has grown out of control, and threatens our freedom and our prosperity like nothing in our country’s history. America has strayed greatly from its roots as a sovereign, independent nation, leaving a unrecognizable country in shambles in its wake.

Glennon elaborates on this ongoing problem by saying:

The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

Glennon is partially correct here. He is certainly right that the policies cannot be changed through voting for the two major political parties. The people have repeatedly showed up to vote for the Democrats, and put them in power to fix the country.

To no avail.

So, the people went back to the drawing board and voted for the Republicans the next time around.

That has failed as well.

No matter who is elected, things always seem to get worse. All of the problems compound on each other, and neither major party offers any solution other than more power for themselves.

But what the feds don’t want you to know is that there is another way to achieve reforms. We the People can use the massive, inefficient nature of the federal bureaucracy against itself. Thanks to the anti-commandeering doctrine, state and local governments can deny compliance and material support to the federal government for whatever reason they so choose. Because the feds rely on state support in more ways than they would like you to realize, this can pose a huge threat to the continuance of business-as-usual policies in Washington D.C.

The Tenth Amendment Center strategy centers on this reality. We have developed a 4th Amendment Protection Act that can be put into effect in your state to protect you against illegal NSA spying. We have developed a Defend the Guard Act to make it difficult for the National Guard in your state to be deployed in deadly, superfluous wars. In addition, we have created legislation to stop the federal agenda on issues as diverse as Health Care, Money, Drones, Drugs and more. So heed Glennon’s advice and take the “bull by the horns.” Join us, and help us stop the out-of-control regulatory state before time runs out.

]]>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/11/01/the-status-quo-in-dc-will-not-change-but-hope-remains/feed/0Thomas Jefferson: On Elective Despotism, a Warninghttp://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/14/thomas-jefferson-on-elective-despotism-a-warning/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/14/thomas-jefferson-on-elective-despotism-a-warning/#commentsSun, 14 Sep 2014 16:01:28 +0000http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24064Because Thomas Jefferson thought it would be only a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into an “elective despotism,” he warned that citizens should act now in order to make sure that “the wolf [was kept] out of the fold.”

1785 seems rather early for Jefferson to be making such dire predictions about the unhappy fate of the new American government, yet his worry that democracy might turn into a form of despotism has proven to be correct if some 200 years later and “not a distant” time as he originally thought.

What is interesting about text below is also the use of animal imagery, this time seeing government as a “wolf” whose teeth and claws would need to be pulled if liberty were to survive.

All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

For this reason that convention, which passed the ordinance of government [215] laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.

But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and executive members were left dependent on the legislative, for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If therefore the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can it be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of an act of assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches.

They have accordingly in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy: and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar. And this is done with no ill intention. The views of the present members are perfectly upright. When they are led out of their regular province, it is by art in others, and inadvertence in themselves. And this will probably be the case for some [216] time to come. But it will not be a very long time.

Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object, of acquisition.

With money we will get men, said Cæsar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them.

They [the assembly] should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes.

The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.